Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias: Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality?

[mdk]

Sil was broken well before this but it seems more pronounced this evening. Poor dear is having trouble coming to terms with the inevitable.

What is broken is the judicial...and in that we are all going to have trouble coming to terms with the inevitable..

Sorry but neither of these justices are going to recuse themselves over your foolish notions of bias that you yourself can't even explain.

 

[dcraelin]

There are a ton of things these judges should be impeached over ....sadly that process isnt used nearly enough.

Do you think this or a more heavily packed republican Congress in 2016 would move to impeach any Justice so engaged in foreshadowing/actively stacking the dice in obvious bias in favor of just one set of litigants in a case pending and still yet to be Heard on the merits?

Sadly I dont think so ....it should happen.....but probably wont.

these justices are arrogant patronage recipients.....of course Kagan shouldn't have presided over a gay marriage with these issues coming before the court. ...she should be impeached over appearances alone.

most of these hack judges should be impeached over all the ass-kissing they've done to get to their positions.

 

[Silhouette]

Sadly I dont think so ....it should happen.....but probably wont.

these justices are arrogant patronage recipients.....of course Kagan shouldn't have presided over a gay marriage with these issues coming before the court. ...she should be impeached over appearances alone.

most of these hack judges should be impeached over all the ass-kissing they've done to get to their positions.

Well the thing that would really stick is the presiding of a supreme federal judge over a state gay wedding as the question of whether or not the fed should preside over the states (plural) on gay marriage looms and arguments have not yet been Heard in that judge's court.

And the equal or perhaps worse crime against American governance of the crafted-erosion of state laws in order to "pack the numbers" of illegally "gay married" people so the Court has its excuse to declare at the end of this "There's nothing we can do...so many people are now gay married..."

If THAT happens, the outrage should turn to impeachments.

 

[dcraelin]

Sadly I dont think so ....it should happen.....but probably wont.

these justices are arrogant patronage recipients.....of course Kagan shouldn't have presided over a gay marriage with these issues coming before the court. ...she should be impeached over appearances alone.

most of these hack judges should be impeached over all the ass-kissing they've done to get to their positions.

Well the thing that would really stick is the presiding of a supreme federal judge over a state gay wedding as the question of whether or not the fed should preside over the states (plural) on gay marriage looms and arguments have not yet been Heard in that judge's court.

It is a more clear example of flaunting the decorum of the court.

 

[Silhouette]

I think it goes a little further than lack of decorum. The appearances at gay weddings (fed officiating over state-symbolic) of the two Justices is bad enough. But the refusal of stays with the intent to erode interim law and state-sovereignty on this question of law is deliberate and insidious. I would argue it is pre-calculated to stuff the ranks of "legally" "gay-married" people so the Court can later claim its overwhelmed and "must" mandate gay marriage federally.."you know, because it's already legal in so many states"..

That is tyranny defined. It's really shady.

 

[Skylar]

Sadly I dont think so ....it should happen.....but probably wont.

these justices are arrogant patronage recipients.....of course Kagan shouldn't have presided over a gay marriage with these issues coming before the court. ...she should be impeached over appearances alone.

most of these hack judges should be impeached over all the ass-kissing they've done to get to their positions.

Well the thing that would really stick is the presiding of a supreme federal judge over a state gay wedding as the question of whether or not the fed should preside over the states (plural) on gay marriage looms and arguments have not yet been Heard in that judge's court.

And the equal or perhaps worse crime against American governance of the crafted-erosion of state laws in order to "pack the numbers" of illegally "gay married" people so the Court has its excuse to declare at the end of this "There's nothing we can do...so many people are now gay married..."

If THAT happens, the outrage should turn to impeachments.

Didn't you say that federal judges would be impeached when the GOP took the senate? Its almost like your claims have no predictive value whatsoever....

 

[Skylar]

I think it goes a little further than lack of decorum. The appearances at gay weddings (fed officiating over state-symbolic) of the two Justices is bad enough.

And what bias do you believe they demonstrated?

If you can't even describe it, then you're going to have a rather difficult time arguing they should be impeached because of it.

But the refusal of stays with the intent to erode interim law and state-sovereignty on this question of law is deliberate and insidious.

The word you're looking for is 'consistent'. As the USSC has denied every stay requested by a State in upholding gay marriage bans. From any State. Without exception.

While you may not know this, the courts are required to assess the likelihood of success of a legal argument when determining if a stay is appropriate. In the case of Alabama (and every other State) requesting a stay to stop gay marriage, the courts determined there was no credible basis of success.

You insist the courts can't do this. The law requires that they do.

As usual, most of your outrage is born of simple ignorance.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm saying that if the Court declares at the end of this "see, there are so many states/people with gay marriage now we HAVE to federally-mandate it", the shit is going to hit the fan...

 

[Skylar]

I'm saying that if the Court declares at the end of this "see, there are so many states/people with gay marriage now we HAVE to federally-mandate it", the shit is going to hit the fan...

Like it did in 1967 when the courts overturned interracial marriage bans, supported by the public by outrageous margins of up to 90%?

Oh, wait. Nothing happened.

But gay marriage that has majority support, with support leading opposition by 12 to 19 points. So why would a ruling that the public supports cause 'the shit to hit the fan' when a ruling that the public overwhelming oppose didn't?

Is it possible you're doing what you always do: projecting yourself onto everyone else?

 

[Silhouette]

Except that this is about experimental lifestyles wanting access to "parent" impressionable children vs RACE. The premise is no good. You've been told this before. Commit that to memory.

 

[Skylar]

Except that this is about experimental lifestyles wanting access to "parent" impressionable children vs RACE. The premise is no good. You've been told this before. Commit that to memory.

Its good enough that between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US, the USSC cited 4 race based cases involving discrimination when describing why discrimination against gays was unconstitutional.

You say the premise of citing race based cases is 'no good'. The Supreme Court cites them. 4 times.

Yeah, I'm gonna go with the court on this one. Not you.

 

[Syriusly]

That is tyranny defined. It's really shady.

No- as usual- you are just delusional.

 

[mdk]

Except that this is about experimental lifestyles wanting access to "parent" impressionable children vs RACE. The premise is no good. You've been told this before. Commit that to memory.

Its good enough that between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US, the USSC cited 4 race based cases involving discrimination when describing why discrimination against gays was unconstitutional.

You say the premise of citing race based cases is 'no good'. The Supreme Court cites them. 4 times.

Yeah, I'm gonna go with the court on this one. Not you.

Mentioning race in this debate is off limits but marrying wolves however is fair game. lol

 

[Silhouette]

U.S. judge rules Nebraska same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional Reuters
Let's see if the Court forces another 70%+ majority into submission as they meekly watch the lifestyle-experiment-as-"parents" crush their right to self-govern to enforce childrens' right to parents of both genders in marriage.. (the standing law of the day...Windsor 2013).

The Court is on a roll. Forced erosion of states laws and weighting the dice on the pre-determined outcome of this year's Hearing will no doubt be applied to Nebraska as well. Gotta love tyranny.

 

[Syriusly]

U.S. judge rules Nebraska same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional Reuters
Let's see if the Court forces another 70%+ majority into submission as they meekly watch the lifestyle-experiment-as-"parents" crush their right to self-govern to enforce childrens' right to parents of both genders in marriage.. (the standing law of the day...Windsor 2013).

The Court is on a roll. Forced erosion of states laws and weighting the dice on the pre-determined outcome of this year's Hearing will no doubt be applied to Nebraska as well. Gotta love tyranny.

It is amusing to watch homophobes whine 'tyranny' when the courts do their job.

Still waiting for you to tell me how preventing gay parents from marrying protects their children- or anyone's children.

Maybe someday......someday.

 

[Skylar]

U.S. judge rules Nebraska same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional Reuters
Let's see if the Court forces another 70%+ majority into submission as they meekly watch the lifestyle-experiment-as-"parents" crush their right to self-govern to enforce childrens' right to parents of both genders in marriage.. (the standing law of the day...Windsor 2013).

With the Windsor ruling finding that State marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees.

And the Federal judge in the Nebraska case finding that State marriage laws violated those constitutional guarantees. And are thus, invalid. Perfectly in line with the Windsor ruling.

See, Silo, you can ignore constitutional guarantees and pretend they're never mentioned in the Windsor ruling. But as I've been telling you for a year......you can't make the courts ignore them.

 

[Silhouette]

It is amusing to watch homophobes whine 'tyranny' when the courts do their job.

Still waiting for you to tell me how preventing gay parents from marrying protects their children- or anyone's children.

Maybe someday......someday.

You think it's the job of the US Supreme Court to display bias and refuse to uphold interim law while a question pends before their Court...?...and actively to cause attrition to one side, loading the dice in favor of the other in the mean time?...all so they can later say "well so many people/states now have legal gay marriage, how can we refuse a federal mandate"?...???

You need to brush up on your political science skills. Apparently you flunked that in high school..

If a question of the Keystone pipeline is pending, you'll no doubt not want to see Roberts or Thomas posing for a photo op with the president of Haliburton near an oil well on the eve of the Hearing...nor would you want them granting contested land grabs for the pipeline easement in the mean time so they could come back later and say "well it looks like the Pipeline is already in so...what can we do?"...Judgement in favor of Haliburton.. *gavel slam*.

Then certain people will turn to you and say "well the court is just doing it's job!".. And you will cringe...

 

[Skylar]

It is amusing to watch homophobes whine 'tyranny' when the courts do their job.

Still waiting for you to tell me how preventing gay parents from marrying protects their children- or anyone's children.

Maybe someday......someday.

You think it's the job of the US Supreme Court to display bias and refuse to uphold interim law while a question pends before their Court...?...and actively to cause attrition to one side, loading the dice in favor of the other in the mean time?...all so they can later say "well so many people/states now have legal gay marriage, how can we refuse a federal mandate"?...???

Who says they are displaying bias? When asked you what bias you think they're demonstrating....

........you can't say. So even you can't back that narrative. As same sex marriage was voted in in both Maryland and DC. What bias against same sex marriage bans could they be demonstrating....when there was no same sex marriage ban?

None. Ending your entire argument. Next strawman.

 

[Syriusly]

It is amusing to watch homophobes whine 'tyranny' when the courts do their job.

Still waiting for you to tell me how preventing gay parents from marrying protects their children- or anyone's children.

Maybe someday......someday.

You think it's the job of the US Supreme Court to display bias .

Still waiting for you to tell me how preventing gay parents from marrying protects their children- or anyone's children.

 

[Silhouette]

Still waiting for you to tell me how preventing gay parents from marrying protects their children- or anyone's children.

Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum